Americans United - Constitutionhttps://au.org/tags/constitution
enFireworks For The Fourth: No, The United States Was Not Founded To Be A ‘Christian Nation’https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/fireworks-for-the-fourth-no-the-united-states-was-not-founded-to-be-a
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">All Americans should be equal in the eyes of the government, yet the Christian nation concept sends the message that there is a &#039;true&#039; religion – Christianity – and all other beliefs are merely tolerated, at best. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Tomorrow is Independence Day, and many of us will be meeting up with family for cook-outs, picnics, reunions and other events.</p><p>While I’m certainly not recommending that you get into an argument with your Uncle Lou who watches too much Fox News, I acknowledge that it might happen. If it does and the topic of America as a “Christian nation” comes up, here is some information you might find useful.</p><p><em>Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does that document state that America is a Christian nation. </em>This is kind of the slam-dunk argument because it is fatal to the Christian nation advocates. If our founding document were intended to promote Christianity, it would say that front and center. It doesn’t.</p><p>It’s telling that Christian nation proponents rarely talk about the Constitution. Instead, they point to obscure 19th century court opinions, proclamations by politicians or comments by figures who lived years after the Constitution was adopted. Why don’t they talk about the Constitution? Because that document is wholly secular. Nowhere in the body of text do the words “Christian,” “Christ,” “Jesus” or “God” even appear.</p><p>Advocates of church-state separation rightly point to the First Amendment, which, through its language prohibiting laws “respecting an establishment of religion” and protecting the “free exercise thereof,” creates the separation of church and state. What’s sometimes overlooked is the language at the end of Article VI, which states that there shall be “no religious test” for federal office. Article VI makes it clear that public office is open to everyone, despite where they worship or whether they worship at all. That’s an odd provision for an officially Christian nation to make. </p><p><em>Key founders did not support the Christian nation concept. </em>Thomas Jefferson, author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which is widely considered a precursor to the First Amendment, opposed anything like an official government-backed church. Jefferson’s protégé, James Madison, is one of the primary authors of the First Amendment. Like Jefferson, Madison was a strong opponent of church-state union, as his writings and his actions make clear. The writings of both men make it apparent that they were strong foes of the Christian nation idea.</p><p>Were there some founders who backed the Christian nation concept? Probably. But their views failed to carry the day. If they had won, the Constitution would look quite different.</p><p><em>At the time of its adoption, everyone knew that the Constitution was secular. </em>Some clergy and political leaders of the day complained about the secular nature of the Constitution and its lack of Christian references. A few pastors went so far as to assert that the American political experiment would not succeed because the Constitution failed to acknowledge Christianity.</p><p>This type of carping continued into the 19th century. After the Civil War, a movement arose among conservative pastors to amend the Constitution by adding references to God, Jesus and Christianity. (Obviously there would have been no need for this if the Constitution had already set up a Christian order.) The movement collapsed, yet in the modern era the spiritual descendants of this drive began claiming, against all available evidence, that the United States was indeed founded to be a Christian nation.</p><p>Lately, some Christian nation advocates have gotten so desperate that they have taken to arguing that it was not necessary for the Constitution to explicitly mention Christianity because that document is obviously based on the Bible.</p><p>Really? Governments in the Bible are run by autocratic kings and emperors. Concepts like representative democracy, checks and balances and the separation of powers don't appear therein.</p><p>One more thing: The Christian nation idea is not a harmless belief. The myth of an officially Christian America sends a message of exclusion. Americans hold many religious and philosophical beliefs. Many are Christian (and even there we see great variety), but others are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, humanist and so on.</p><p>All Americans should be equal in the eyes of the government, yet the Christian nation concept sends the message that there is a “true” religion – Christianity – and all other beliefs are merely tolerated, at best. Adherents of these “lesser” belief systems are told that they are second-class citizens, that they are little more than guests in their own nation.</p><p>In short, the Christian nation concept doesn’t celebrate the remarkable achievement of this nation – a story of religious freedom resting on a secular state that does not presume to meddle in private matters of theology. Instead, it buries that success story under a pile of far-right politics wedded to often dangerous forms of religious extremism and nationalism.</p><p>It is counter to the ideas we celebrate on the Fourth of July.</p><p>(Note: This blog post is based in part on an editorial that appeared in the July-August issue of <em>Church &amp; State</em>. Happy Independence Day!)</p><p> </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/independence-day">Independence Day</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/july-4">July 4</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/constitution">Constitution</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/article-vi">Article VI</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/civil-war">Civil War</a></span></div></div>Fri, 03 Jul 2015 13:09:41 +0000Rob Boston11247 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/fireworks-for-the-fourth-no-the-united-states-was-not-founded-to-be-a#commentsBad History: Another Ala. Official Thinks The Constitution Is Based On The Ten Commandments https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/bad-history-another-ala-official-thinks-the-constitution-is-based-on-the
<a href="/about/people/simon-brown">Simon Brown</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">There can be no doubt that putting up a religious display on government property is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. No matter what Tim Guffey claims, such a monument would send the message that non-believers are not welcome in Alabama.</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>An Alabama official wants to display the Ten Commandments outside a county courthouse, and he thinks he can justify the location of said monument by arguing that the famous list of biblical laws simply isn’t religious.</p><p>Instead, said Jackson County Commissioner Tim Guffey (R), he just wants people to know the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tim-guffey-alabama-ten-commandments_n_5682955.html">supposed basis</a> behind America’s most famous documents.</p><p>“If you look at the documents that was written (sic) – the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence – they are all stemmed from the word of God, from the Ten Commandments,” Guffey said last week in an interview with WHNT, the CBS affiliate in Huntsville.</p><p>In a separate interview with the news website AL.com, Guffey added that he’s “not going to push religion at all” with his proposed monument and thinks the Decalogue display would teach students the real story behind the founding of America.</p><p>“They don’t teach this at school anymore, and a person would have to go back and research and study each one of those men’s writings to find out that that’s what established them,” he said. “That’s what gave [the Founding Fathers] the inspiration to read the greatest Constitution this world has ever seen.”</p><p>Of course Guffey is <a href="https://www.au.org/church-state/june-2003-church-state/people-events/us-law-not-based-on-ten-commandments-law-profs">off base all around</a>. The U.S. Constitution makes zero mention of Jesus, God or any other religious deity. It also bears little resemblance to the Ten Commandments, which indisputably come from the Bible, an indisputably religious text. After all, U.S. law does not forbid adultery, nor can one be punished for failing to remember the Sabbath.</p><p>While it is rightfully illegal to murder, steal and in some cases lie, those are basic ideas that predate the inception of Judaism, Christianity and most other religions. </p><p>Yes, the Declaration of Independence does mention God and rights that come from a creator. But what does that have to do with the Ten Commandments? And the fact that such language was left out of the Constitution, which is a governing document – unlike the Declaration – says that the Founding Fathers didn’t intend to base the United States on religious law.</p><p>It’s also incredibly delusional for Guffey to think that the Ten Commandments aren’t religious, adding him to a long line of fundamentalists who have <a href="https://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/skiing-with-jesus-federal-judge-says-religious-statue-can-remain-on-public">argued that Christian symbols or concepts</a> don’t really have anything to do with faith. If the Ten Commandments aren’t religious, then what are they? Guffey of course hasn’t said.</p><p>Most importantly, Guffey should know his idea is doomed because Alabama officials have tried this before – <a href="https://au.org/church-state/december-2012-church-state/people-events/commandments-judge-roy-moore-elected-alabama">and failed</a>. Most famously, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore put up a Decalogue display outside the state Supreme Court back in 2001. Moore was later ordered by a federal court to remove the monument, but he refused. So he was removed from the bench, along with the display, back in 2003. (Moore was reelected to his old position in 2012.)</p><p>There can be no doubt, outside of Guffey’s mind, that putting up a religious display on government property is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. No matter what Guffey claims, such a monument would send the message that non-believers are not welcome in Alabama.</p><p>Guffey said he hopes his proposed monument will teach school children about the Founding Fathers, but it seems Guffey is the one who needs to be taught a thing or two. Hopefully he’ll soon receive a very valuable lesson in the meaning of the First Amendment. </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/government-sponsored-religious-displays">Government-Sponsored Religious Displays</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/tim-guffey">Tim Guffey</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ten-commandments">ten commandments</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/roy-moore">Roy Moore</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/constitution">Constitution</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/declaration-of-independence">Declaration of Independence</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Location:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/our-work/grassroots/alabama">Alabama</a></span></div></div>Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:04:14 +0000Simon Brown10424 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/bad-history-another-ala-official-thinks-the-constitution-is-based-on-the#commentsA Christian Constitution?: Scholars Argue U.S. Law Is Divinely Inspiredhttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-christian-constitution-scholars-argue-us-law-is-divinely-inspired
<a href="/about/people/ms-sarah-jones">Sarah Jones</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Their argument, published in a recent edition of The Journal of Christian Legal Thought, provides an academic sheen to the Religious Right’s favorite talking points. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>According to a group of conservative Catholic and Evangelical legal scholars, American civil law has undeniably <a href="http://issuu.com/clsnet/docs/cls_summer_2013_journal_final">divine</a> roots.<br /><br />Their argument, published in a recent edition of <em>The Journal of Christian Legal Thought,</em> provides an academic sheen to the Religious Right’s favorite talking points. “We affirm together that human law must aspire to the qualities specified in the traditional definition,” they wrote. “It should be an act of reason in conformity with God’s moral law, as written on the human heart and revealed in the Bible (Romans 2: 14-16).”<br /><br />The group further added, “Law’s connection to reason requires that officials make legal and legislative judgments that are lawful from the perspective of God’s law,” and they concluded with their hopes that “God would be glorified” through their work. <br /><br />As private individuals, these scholars are obviously entitled to that hope. Their other arguments, though, are of serious concern.<br /><br />Let’s start with the assumption that this sectarian definition of the law is somehow “traditional.” It might very well be traditional for Catholics, who adhere to the church’s canon law. It might be traditional for those evangelicals who interpret the Bible literally.<br /><br />But this “traditional” approach to civil law simply isn’t to be found in U.S. Constitution. The Constitution also doesn’t acknowledge any “requirement” that officials must govern from a Christian perspective. In fact, the First Amendment is clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….<br /><br />The Founding Fathers were equally clear. In a personal letter to Rev. Samuel Miller, Thomas Jefferson <a href="https://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/with-sovereign-reverence.pdf">wrote</a>, “Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.”<br /><br />Jefferson didn’t write this out of anti-Christian sentiment. He wrote out of concern for religious liberty. In that same letter, he asserted, “Every religious society has the right to determine for itself the times for these exercise and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets, and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”<br /><br />And James Madison <a href="https://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/what-god-has-put-asunder.pdf">agreed</a>. “We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings &amp; Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt,” he wrote in a letter.<br /><br />These days, we hear often that America is a “Christian nation,” and that our laws should reflect right-wing Christian beliefs. Usually, we hear it from the likes of David Barton, and not from a group of legal scholars based at respectable institutions like the University of Virginia and the Princeton University. But no amount of academic sheen can make this assertion anything other than wishful thinking with no basis in fact.<br /><br />It’s obvious that regardless of their personal beliefs, our Founding Fathers never intended to create a legal system defined by religion. These Christian scholars may believe that officials should rule from a religious perspective, but they’d have to ignore the most fundamental underpinnings of American democracy to advance that belief on the national stage.</p><p>Today is Constitution Day. As we mark this day at Americans United, we’re grateful that our founding documents protect our right to the free exercise of belief, and we remain dedicated to defending that right from dogmatic attacks by aspiring theocrats. </p><p>Please join us. </p></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/constitution-day">Constitution Day</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/constitution">Constitution</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/thomas-jefferson">thomas jefferson</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/separation-church-and-state">Separation of Church and State</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/christian-nation">christian nation</a></span></div></div>Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:36:19 +0000Ms. Sarah Jones8966 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/a-christian-constitution-scholars-argue-us-law-is-divinely-inspired#commentsExtreme Makeover: Religious Right And Its Political Allies Call For Redrafting Our Founding Documenthttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/extreme-makeover-religious-right-and-its-political-allies-call-for
<a href="/about/people/rob-boston">Rob Boston</a><div class="field field-name-field-blog-type field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/blogs/wall-of-separation">Wall of Separation</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-callout field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">There have always been those who treat the Constitution like a first draft. </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="prose"><p>Friday is Constitution Day. As national holidays go, it’s no Thanksgiving. Many Americans don’t even know about it; few will attend events to mark the day.</p>
<p>That’s a shame. The Constitution is our nation’s foundational document. Its Bill of Rights, ratified 10 years after the Constitution was approved, is a charter of liberties that has inspired people around the world for more than 200 years. The Constitution and Bill of Rights stand as bulwarks against tyranny; they should be celebrated. (You can read the <a href="//www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html ">Constitution</a> and the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html">Bill of Rights</a> at the National Archives’ Web site.)</p>
<p>There’s a particular genius behind our Constitution. It can be altered, but the process is not easy. That was done on purpose. The Founders did not want changes made to our governing charter on the basis of passing whims or hysteria.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, there have always been those who treat the Constitution like a first draft. Some have even targeted the First Amendment. Over the years, amendments promoting official school prayer, extending tax aid to religious institutions, banning flag “desecration” and outlawing same-sex marriage have been proposed, and some have even faced votes in Congress. Religious Right groups have enthusiastically backed these misguided proposals.</p>
<p>In 1998, former U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), working in concert with various Religious Right groups, introduced a mis-named <a href="http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/1999/09/rep-istook-rein.html">“Religious Freedom Amendment”</a> that would have gutted the First Amendment’s religious liberty provision. Istook’s amendment would have fostered religious worship in public schools, allowed for tax funding of religious institutions and permitted display of religious symbols at the seat of government.</p>
<p>The House of Representatives voted on Istook’s amendment on June 4, 1998. Much to AU’s distress, this monstrosity actually garnered a simple majority – but thankfully it fell short of the two-thirds vote needed to pass a constitutional amendment.</p>
<p>But the Constitution bashers won’t give up. The most extreme among them seek a near-total rewrite – and aren’t afraid to put our liberties at risk.</p>
<p>Recently, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn wrote <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/13/sen-john-cornyn-constitutional-convention-balanced-budget-obama-founders/">a column</a> for Fox News proposing a new Constitutional Convention. Cornyn says a new convention is necessary to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. But he must know that once a convention is called, it can’t be limited to just one topic. Article V of the Constitution says that if two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a convention, one must be convened “for proposing amendments.” Note that the word is plural.</p>
<p>A runaway convention should easily go off the rails and begin considering any manner of dangerous ideas. An entire cavalcade of discredited amendments dealing with issues like school prayer, religious school vouchers, same-sex marriage, abortion and others could suddenly be given new life.</p>
<p>There are a lot of good people working in Congress today, but let’s face it, there are also an uncomfortably high number of men and women with extreme views, the kind of lawmakers who cater to the Religious Right. The last thing we want is people like this meddling with the Founders’ handiwork.</p>
<p>On Constitution Day, the best thing we can do is celebrate that document – not call for a rewrite.</p>
<p>P.S. James Madison is considered the “Father of the Constitution.” He was a brilliant thinker, a primary architect of our government and a strong advocate for church-state separation. Madison rarely gets his due. Read about his accomplishments <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=23377">here</a>.</p>
</div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Issues:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/fighting-religious-right">Fighting the Religious Right</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/issues/history-and-origins-church-state-separation">History and Origins of Church-State Separation</a></span></div></div><div class="tags clearfix"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/bill-rights">Bill of Rights</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/constitution">Constitution</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/constitution-day">Constitution Day</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/ernest-istook">Ernest Istook</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/james-madison">James Madison</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/john-cornyn">John Cornyn</a></span>, <span class="field-item"><a href="/tags/resources">Resources</a></span></div></div>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:30:12 +0000Rob Boston2113 at https://au.orghttps://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/extreme-makeover-religious-right-and-its-political-allies-call-for#comments